Roski Wants to Buy Bills or Jags Outright, or Parts of Other Teams Such as Chargers

Los Angeles billionaire Ed Roski Jr., who says he will build a 75,000 seat, $800 million stadium in City of Industry, wants to buy the Buffalo Bills or Jacksonville Jaguars, one of his executives said yesterday (Jan. 5). Both of those small-market teams have had trouble attracting fans. However, their owners have said they didn't want to sell or relocate, but these pronouncements may just be negotiating ploys. If he can't buy those teams, Roski says he would like part of the equity of the San Diego Chargers, Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders, San Francisco 49ers and St. Louis Rams, who would relocate to his planned L.A. area stadium. Roski hopes to make an announcement before the Feb. 7 Super Bowl. Roski says he hasn't contacted any teams or made any formal offers.

Roski is playing games. He knows that the Bills are going nowhere and that Jacksonville likely won't either.

Of course he is playing games, they play one city off against another. Don't be surprised to see the bankrupt city of Buffallo squander more of their general revenue funds on a stadium/improvmenets-along with tax hikes on the poor, like Cabelas (big box retailer) did with Syracuse. Same for Jacksonville.

BUT, if one of those teams did sign on-that would put the Chargers in a whole lotta hurt.

I think the Chargers are the team to beat for winning the Superbowl. I thought New Orleans was the team, until their final 4 games.......

Response to post #1: The Bills' owner, although he has claimed he will not sell the team, is elderly. Buffalo is not attracting fans. It will be playing part of its games in Toronto. Jacksonville also cant fill up its stadium. I would not be surprised if either sold out and moved, perhaps to L.A. Best, Don Bauder

Response to post #2: Once again, I will say it: the Chargers would prefer L.A., even if it had to sell part of the equity to Roski. However, other NFL owners might not let it happen. That is why the Chargers are going down several roads. Best, Don Bauder

<p>NFL.com had an article yesterday stating that Buffalo and then Jacksonville were the first teams in line for the L.A. stadium.

I also LOVE how people are saying the Chargeless are on fire. Didn't those people say that last year and the year before and the year before and the year before and the year before and the year before and...

SP said: Good call MiM on the SuperBowl match up with the Chargers and CowGirls.

Don said: Response to post #5: If you're so sure, why don't you put $100,000 on that spread?

Cowboys are +$1,200 to win. Pretty nice odds if you believe in them, although not many do. Saints are +$400 and Vikings are +$600. Dallas would have to beat Philly first, then beat both the Saints and the Vikings on the road just to get there. That is just not going to happen.

The Chargers scenario is much more plausible, which is why they are only paying +$350

By no means do I think San Diego is a lock. With the way they are playing, the fact they are reasonably healthy and the fact they get a bye and then a home game, they have just about as good a shot as anybody. I give them roughly a 40% chance of making it to the Super Bowl. I give the Colts a 45% chance, since they are also well rested and will play the Chargers at home. It might be closer to 45% and 50%, since the rest of the field in the AFC doesn't scare anybody. The Patriots are +550 based mostly on sentiment, not what they have done this year. Nobody else has any shot in the AFC.

The NFC is different, because neither the Vikings nor the Saints is a proven winner in big games, and every other team is capable of an effort that could beat anybody. Even the Cardinals (with the worst record) scare teams, because when they are on they can't be stopped.

If the Chargers make it to the Super Bowl against the Vikings, I think that they are in trouble. Against anybody else, I like their chances.

Ricky Williams had one of the most impressive and newsworthy comebacks in recent memory, and he did not get a single vote. To be out of football for years, to be considered finished, and then to come back at his age at the level he did was just astounding. What he did was on par with what Kurt Warner did last year.

Apparently neither Warner nor Williams received any consideration because they had each done a little too well the year before. They each completed astounding two year comebacks, but that doesn't count.

By no means do I think San Diego is a lock. With the way they are playing, the fact they are reasonably healthy and the fact they get a bye and then a home game, they have just about as good a shot as anybody.

No team is a lock, but there is no question the Charger offense is the most potenet in the NFL right now-at this point in time.

Chargers have an excellent defense, and with an 11 game win streak, NO have a 2 or 3 game losing streak, Colts have a 2 game losing streak-the odds for winning it all are most tilted in favor of the Chargers.

I am pretty shocked how the season turned out-but there is no denying the fact that the Chargers have the goods to win it all this year.

First off SP, the Chargeless have made the playoffs 4 straight years because the division sucks. As much as I respect the Raiders and Chiefs a hell of a lot more than the Hillcrest Chargeless, they are pathetic. Let's not forget about the Donkeys self-destructing two years in a row. Speaking of self-destructing...the Chargeless have been handed the Lombardi on a silver platter year after year and yet they somehow manage to pull out that .357 and blow their foot off...

Second, you're correct. The Chargeless were in fact 1-2 TDs away from the Super Bowl. Too bad woulda, shoulda, couldas don't get you far in life. ;-D

SurfPup said: "Although I joke on here at times about putting money where mouth is (in the form of $100 bets)-I am very much against gambling. It is a terrible, and dangerous, vice."

SurfPup said: "Chargers have an excellent defense, and with an 11 game win streak, NO have a 2 or 3 game losing streak, Colts have a 2 game losing streak-the odds for winning it all are most tilted in favor of the Chargers."

In the 36 seasons since Miami went undefeated, only ONE team won their last 11 regular season games (New England won their last 12 in 2003).

A full 19 Super Bowl champions during that span, however, lost one of their last three games.

Yes, New England won 18 straight and then lost in the Super Bowl. That was the point I was driving at. Having a long winning streak can actually be somewhat draining on a team. New England was thought to be the vastly superior team, yet lost the Super Bowl that year.

Losing a few meaningless games at the end of the season is often due to a team playing "vanilla" once they have secured their playoff spot (i.e. nothing but basic formations on both offense and defense so you don't show on film what you really plan on doing when it matters), as well as resting key players.

Yes, New England won 18 straight and then lost in the Super Bowl. That was the point I was driving at. Having a long winning streak can actually be somewhat draining on a team. New England was thought to be the vastly superior team, yet lost the Super Bowl that year.

NE lost by a hair.

I think that Patriots/Giants game was the best SB ever played.

Eli Manning was in the grasps of a NE defender and tossed the pass of his life in the 4th Quarter to go ahead and win. I do not think the NE win streak did anything to diminish their playing ability in that SB.

If you look at ALL the teams you listed, like NO, Indy, MN.....they ALL played awful the last month of the season. Not the Chargers, they are peaking perfectly.

Don Said: "Response to post #33: I think you have to confess that you were wrong in your second paragraph (post #26)."

====================================================
What I meant to say is actually correct, but I definitely could have said it much more clearly.

I was talking about super bowl champions, so when I said only 1 team had one their last 11 regular season games, I meant only 1 super bowl championship team had won their last 11 games.

I was specifically thinking of New England, because it is widely thought that the stress of trying to maintain their winning streak wore them down. That is why teams like the Colts and the Saints aren't discounted, even though the lost late. For many reasons, they actually preferred a loss or two at the end.

My point was that 19 of the last 35 Super Bowl champions can be said to have stumbled going into the playoffs since they lost at least one of their last three regular season games. Historically, riding a large winning streak and "peaking" going into the postseason has not been a strong indicator of Super Bowl success.

In fact, the few teams which did enter with long winning streaks were some of the most dominant teams ever. If my memory serves me, they included a couple of the Steelers teams, a couple of the 49ers teams, a New England team and a Dallas team for the longest streaks (still 9 games or less, with the lone exception of New England wining 12).

I don't think anybody is mentioning these Chargers as being in that category. That is not to say they won't win, because I don't think anybody is near that level this year.

Yes, it was a close game, but New England was a huge favorite (+12) and didn't perform.

That raises another interesting tidbit: The betting line has historically been very good at picking super bowl winners. 32 favorites have won out of 44 games. The interesting thing is that 5 of the 12 underdog victors were underdogs by 11 points or more. That means the odds makers are generally right, but when they are wrong they are often badly wrong. In fact, in games where the line is 11 points or greater, the favorites only hold a 6-5 edge.

Do you remember when the Chargers made the Super Bowl? They were 18.5 point underdogs to the 49ers, and they couldn't even cover. Now THAT team (the 49ers) was one of the great ones.

Response to post #35: There is controversy about holding out players in late games. The team may lose momentum. But this year, New England lost its key receiver to injury by leaving him in. Best, Don Bauder

Response to post 36: I just wish we could generate as many heated opinions about the Chargers's attempt to filch $700 million to $800 million from a bankrupt city as we do about the possible Super Bowl winner.

I always thought basketball lent itself much too conveniently to point shaving. One or two people can have such a large impact on the final score. It's so easy to miss a free throw, throw away a pass, or just the choice between taking a last shot or letting the clock run out in a game that is already decided, to swing the final score by 4 or 5 points.

And of course when I was 5 or 6 my older brothers were sure to repeatedly tell me that all the Dodgers games were fixed, and major league baseball was a show just like professional wrestling!

Response to post 36:"I just wish we could generate as many heated opinions about the Chargers's attempt to filch $700 million to $800 million from a bankrupt city as we do about the possible Super Bowl winner."

Bingo Don!!!!! To all the bandwagon riding FF geeks who are so sure that THIS IS THE YEAR, I beg of you, put up or shut up!

Like the saying goes, the sun shines on a dog's ass every now and then...

Response to post #45: Definitely, basketball is an easier game to fix. The referees can aid in the process, too. Boxing, of course, has been notorious. Throughout history, boxing matches have been thrown. I would think golf would be easy to fix, and there is a lot of gambling on professional golf. Best, Don Bauder

Do you remember when the Chargers made the Super Bowl? They were 18.5 point underdogs to the 49ers, and they couldn't even cover. Now THAT team (the 49ers) was one of the great ones.

Yes, one of the highest scoring teams ever. So were the 83 redskins. Steve Young was amazing, and Junior Seau didn't have a very good game. As good as Young was, I will always say Joe Montana was the best QB I have ever seen.

I remember when the 1983 Raiders won the SB, they were bigtime underdogs against Washington, and one SMALL casino owner in Vegas (forgot who it was-could have been Stratosphere developer Stupak) walked across the street to one of the BIG casinos-with $1 million in cash-and took the Raiders and the points-and the Raiders won.

Response to post #49: There has been much written about pro sports team owners's ties -- often direct -- to organized crime. This is most evident in the NFL, with the NHL and NBA close behind. Baseball owners have fewer ties to organized crime and gambling, although some Vegas swingers have owned baseball teams. As to baseball umps: I don't remember seeing any evidence of umps' ties to mob game fixers, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any. Best, Don Bauder